Downsizing the PIGTAIL

[titan1021]

I was taught that using a #14 pigtail on #12 branch circuits, as in pigtailing residential receptacles was fine by the code.

In 8yrs of doing electrical work, I've never had an inspector say one word about #14 pigtailed to #12 wires in a receptacle box.

Until, yesterday ! This is this guys pet peeve. He asked to show him where in the code book it is permitted.

I was stumped !

 

[TOOL_5150]

I was taught that using a #14 pigtail on #12 branch circuits, as in pigtailing residential receptacles was fine by the code.

In 8yrs of doing electrical work, I've never had an inspector say one word about #14 pigtailed to #12 wires in a receptacle box.

Until, yesterday ! This is this guys pet peeve. He asked to show him where in the code book it is permitted.

I was stumped !

HA! I was told this was 'OK' from my last boss as well. It is WRONG. You can not use #14 on a #12 branch circuit - Unless the breaker is 15 amps. The code specifically denies the use of #14, on a 20A, #12 receptacle circuit.

~Matt

 

[roger]

The inspector is correct, see 210.19(A)(2)

Roger

 

[electricmanscott]

This is this guys pet peeve.

I wouldn't call not allowing something that is not allowable a pet peeve. I'd call it inspector doing their job . :wink:

You learned something new, that is a good thing.

My pet peeve is all the inspectors that have let it go over the years.

 

[mxslick]

I'm gonna stir the pot...

I'm gonna stir the pot...

While I agree with 210.19(A)(2) in principle, I strongly disagree that a #14 pigtail on even a fully loaded 20amp circuit is going to create a significant safety hazard. Why?

• The length of the pigtail will most likely be under 12 inches;
• I don't see the resistance of such a short piece of #14 being that much higher than #12 of the same length;
• A constant load of 20 amps on a single receptacle is possible, but not too likely;
• IIRC, is not the true ampacity of #14 at 90 deg. C actually 30 amps anyway?(Derated to 15 amps for 75c connections and NM cable?

..just to name a few reasons. :grin:

You know, just for fun, I'm gonna pick up an IR thermometer soon, set up my xenon projector lamp power supply (it draws a steady 19.4 amps at rated lamp current) and test the temperature rise of a pigtail of #14 vs. a direct connection with #12 to the P/S receptacle.

I will post the results of this test with pics.

 

[infinity]

While I agree with 210.19(A)(2) in principle, I strongly disagree that a #14 pigtail on even a fully loaded 20amp circuit is going to create a significant safety hazard. Why?

• The length of the pigtail will most likely be under 12 inches;
• I don't see the resistance of such a short piece of #14 being that much higher than #12 of the same length;
• A constant load of 20 amps on a single receptacle is possible, but not too likely;
• IIRC, is not the true ampacity of #14 at 90 deg. C actually 30 amps anyway?(Derated to 15 amps for 75c connections and NM cable?

..just to name a few reasons. :grin:

You know, just for fun, I'm gonna pick up an IR thermometer soon, set up my xenon projector lamp power supply (it draws a steady 19.4 amps at rated lamp current) and test the temperature rise of a pigtail of #14 vs. a direct connection with #12 to the P/S receptacle.

I will post the results of this test with pics.

Although your observations have merit you still can't get around the fact that it's an NEC violation.

 

[pete m.]

IIRC, is not the true ampacity of #14 at 90 deg. C actually 30 amps anyway?(Derated to 15 amps for 75c connections and NM cable?

NM Cable is limited to 60 deg. C per 334.80. The 90 deg. c ampacity is permitted for derating purposes as long as the final adjusted ampacity does not exceed that of the 60 deg. C ampacity.

I would also have to assume that the time/current relationship would also come into play.

Pete

 

[mxslick]

Playing devil's advocte..

Playing devil's advocte..

Pete, thanks for the correction on the NM capacity..


Infinity, Very true, but the point is that there are some items in the Code that are just plain dumb, or have no real safety impact whatsoever. And IMHO, this pigtail thing is one of them. I am curious as to how far back this prohibition goes, I'm willing to bet that it (and the "no #14 on switch legs") is a "recent" change (IOW say after about 1980 or so), brought on by someone with a burr under their tail.

I for one would love to see some published stats of fires or other failures caused by these pigtails, which would then justify the Code's stance.

Edited to add: And if my test results hold out my theory, then I plan to submit a change proposal.

 

[roger]

While I agree with 210.19(A)(2) in principle, I strongly disagree that a #14 pigtail on even a fully loaded 20amp circuit is going to create a significant safety hazard. I will post the results of this test with pics.

Tony, you're not stirring the pot, I think everyone will agree that there is not much hazzard in this practice, but as Rob pointed out, all of us being in agreement doesn't trump the NEC.

Roger

 

[pete m.]

Edited to add: And if my test results hold out my theory, then I plan to submit a change proposal.

Atta boy! Just my advice.... your test should be done over a period of time and backed up with data on conductor insulation degradation and effects on the conductor itself (if there is any of either) included in the substantiation for your proposal.

Pete

 

[mike johnson]

Learning curve.

Learning curve.

I was taught that using a #14 pigtail on #12 branch circuits, as in pigtailing residential receptacles was fine by the code.

In 8yrs of doing electrical work, I've never had an inspector say one word about #14 pigtailed to #12 wires in a receptacle box.

Until, yesterday ! This is this guys pet peeve. He asked to show him where in the code book it is permitted.

I was stumped !

Looks like you've been violating codes for 8 years. Don't worry many others have been doing worse. Mainly in trac homes. My cousin lives in a new development where there are over 200 homes and all the washing machines are tied to the bathroom receptacles. She has to wait until she is finished washing clothes to blow dry her hair. The so called electrician told her it was normal and no different than the dinning receptacles being tied to the kitchen receptacles.

 

[480sparky]

Looks like you've been violating codes for 8 years. Don't worry many others have been doing worse. Mainly in trac homes. My cousin lives in a new development where there are over 200 homes and all the washing machines are tied to the bathroom receptacles. She has to wait until she is finished washing clothes to blow dry her hair. The so called electrician told her it was normal and no different than the dinning receptacles being tied to the kitchen receptacles.

Except the dining room is allowed to be on with the kitchen receptacles. 210.52(B)(1). The laundry is not allowed to be on the bathroom circuit. 210.11(C)(3).

 

[roger]

Tony, the real reason most people do this is so they can back stab a cheap 15 amp receptacle on a 20 amp circuit which is violating the listing of the receptacle as well as 210.19(A)(2)

From page 227 of the 2006 UL White Book

Screwless terminal connectors of the conductor push-in type (also
known as ??push-in-terminals??) are restricted to 15 A branch circuits and
are for connection with 14 AWG solid copper wire only.

Think about it, if the reason was that the poor installer had weak fingers and couldn't bend #12 they should probably be looking for another profession don't you think? :wink:

Roger​

 

[iwire]

Edited to add: And if my test results hold out my theory, then I plan to submit a change proposal.

What would be the reason for the change?

What is the hardship caused by having to use the conductor size you ran for the circuit?:-?

IMO, simply saying there is no reason for the rule (and maybe there is not) will not get the code changed.

You would have to prove that the change would not decrease safety and that there is a valid need for a reduced size.

 

[mike johnson]

Except the dining room is allowed to be on with the kitchen receptacles. 210.52(B)(1). The laundry is not allowed to be on the bathroom circuit. 210.11(C)(3).

The sad part about this is that you actually have people wiring these circuits because they came in as a low bidder. I will shop around for the lower bidder on all construction except for plumbing and electrical. These are very important trades. No reason to be cheap about these. You risk burning in the end.

 

[iwire]

The sad part about this is that you actually have people wiring these circuits because they came in as a low bidder.

I don't see any reason to separate the kitchen and dinning room circuits in typical homes.

 

[480sparky]

I don't see any reason to separate the kitchen and dinning room circuits in typical homes.

As far as the NEC is concerned, I agree.

But many hi-end homes have massive kitchens, and buffet tables, butler pantys and serving areas are common. I may end up with 3-4 SACs in the kitchen alone (discounting dedicated circuits for specific appliances) and still have 1-2 SACs in the dining room. Roasters, coffee pots, hot plates, microwaves etc. can easily be used in a dining room. While the NEC allows me a minimum of 2 SACs, I have installed 8-10 in some homes.

 

[iwire]

As far as the NEC is concerned, I agree.

But many hi-end homes.........

I don't see any reason to separate the kitchen and dinning room circuits in typical homes.

I guess it's all a matter of prospective but to me a high end home is not a typical home. :smile:

 

[480sparky]

I guess it's all a matter of prospective but to me a high end home is not a typical home. :smile:

Hence my use of the word 'but....'. :smile:

 

[iwire]

While the NEC allows me a minimum of 2 SACs, I have installed 8-10 in some homes.

Thats cool and your paid for that.


But honestly ........ unless they have 8 - 10 people cooking at the same time it's overkill.

Not saying I would not do the same on a high end home but I still doubt the need. :smile: